Appreciating Apple Attitudes

Apple engenders an almost fanatical level of loyalty from its consumers.   ATT solidified its market position as a strong second in the US cell phone market by being the exclusive of the iPhone for years when it first came out.  But now, nearly every cellular carrier, including MVNOs like Virgin Mobile and Ting can offer their customers the iPhone without the iron clad two year contract, albeit without a handset subsidy. 

Admittedly, I have never owned an Apple product.  Not because I am a technological Luddite, but because I refuse to pay the stupid tax.

Since Apple is a vertically integrated company, meaning that they control the design and manufacturing of phones, the marketing of the handsets as well as vet any software on their devices, everything goes through Cupertino. So one pays a premium for an Apple device, the software tends to be more expensive (because it is programmed in house or needs to be customized for Apple).  Nearly all computer peripherals needed come from Cupertino.  Apple wants to care for its own products (with so called geniuses) with exclusive (and more costly) insurance and care programs.  In addition, they wanted to corner the market on media, by forcing media purchases through I-Tunes which used to lock it with DRM.  Now it just makes it extremely inconvenient to take it out of i-Tunes.  

Apple is also  currently engaged in an anti-trust trial for conspiring with five major publishers to raise the prices of e-books and undercut Amazon.    For these reasons, I consider Apple ownership as people paying the stupid tax, however I appreciate that 18% of the cell phone market will willingly pay this premium for Apple's i-Phones because of  the perception that "it just works" at practically any price.

This vertical integration allows Apple to have a uniform user experience.  So the home screens on every i-Phone will be the same.  Steve Jobs had animus against Adobe and refused to let Flash Video on Apple devices. There may have been principled reasons about battery life which inspired Job's vendetta, but Walter Issacson's biography of Steve Jobs intimates that Jobs had sour grapes about Adobe after Adobe favored Windows based video editing products.  These design decisions  may have ensured the walled garden stability of the i-Phone but this forced i-Phone users to either jail break their phones or forgo many websites that use embedded Flash video. Now the internet imbroglio is a Flash in the pan as the internet has moved away from Flash video. 

Indubitably, Apple produces or popularizes innovative products. The GUI interface was iconic (sic) in inspiring other O/S's (such as Windows). Apple may not have invented the i-Pod, but it became widespread through their product.  The i-Phone spread like wildfire amongst tech types because it was a stylish smartphone.  The SIRI interface took consumers closer to having a cyber personal assistant. But other companies have caught up and offer more economical choices with more real world flexibility than Apple offers (like replacing batteries, adding SD memory, accessing internet sites, not being forced to  buy into i-Tunes, etc..). 

It is an interesting phenomenon that those in the Apple cult not only look down upon those who refuse to join the Apple cult but they also savagely turn on Apple enthusiasts who do not have the latest and "greatest" products.

N.B.- This is a satirical advertisement

And woe be people who those who do not buy into the Book of Jobs. 




While  the parody video is a reductio ad absurdum, it typifies the mindset of many in the Apple cult, who can not appreciate that what works for them may not be alright for others.  This device devotion to the i-Phone despite better alternatives was satirized in certain scatalogical satirical videos.

Of course, the Occupy Movement activists  in 2011 exhibited quite a rarified mindset as these grungry, unlawful protesters who identified with the 98% railing against capitalism sported shiny expensive new i-Pads and i-Phones. 


Although Apple is a quintessentially liberal company, the powers that be in the District of Calamity (sic) gave unwarranted condemnation to Apple for  legally minimized its taxes on non-US earnings by consolidating the funds in an Irish tax haven.  It is a lamentable paradox that a taxpayer who is following the law is condemned by liberals enough, even though they were in legal compliance.  While I choose not to pay the stupid tax by buying walled garden cellular or computing technology for a premium, I am troubled by attempts to pressure Cupertino with the power of government for not paying a stupid tax of an ambiguous "their fair share"  by a Leviathan government led by showboating liberal Senate Democrats. 



Even if we use Android, Blackberry or Windows products, it would serve well for consumers and citizens to "Think Different" and  be the rebels against conforming to "Big Brother" as was intimated in the iconic Apple 1984 MacIntosh Superbowl ad.




h/t:  thejoyoftech 

Taxing Credulity in Honesty

Debbie Bozaneck at 2012 State of the Union

During the 1992 Presidential campaign, both Warren Buffet and President Obama loved to point out that secretaries paid at a higher personal tax rate than the billionaires.  His secretary paid the higher 35.8% income tax rate whereas the Wizard of Omaha paid an effective 17.4% rate. In fact, Debbie Bozaneck, Buffet's personal secretary,  was invited to sit in the Presidential box during the 2012 State of the Union to highlight the inequity.

The truth be told, Warren Buffet derived most of his income from capital gains, not salaried income. Thus Buffet's long term capital gains were taxed at 15% and most of his earnings were not subject to the 4.2% Social Security and the 1.45% Medicare payroll taxes.  Nor does Buffet's low figure take into account double taxation coming from taxable income from long term capital gains, which would be  taxed at an effective rate of 49% (15% long term capital gain and 34% personal income).  Of course, none of these figures include state, local and sales taxes.

This flurry of tax inequity publicity ostensively was meant to sell the stillborn Buffet Rule which Mr. Obama parried during his re-election campaign. But instead of being the basic of tax reform, it served as a campaign cudgel of class warfare against upper income Americans (the top  2%) who already shoulder  the bulk of the tax burden. 

If Buffet really felt like he was fleecing the Feds, he can always gift the Treasury Department more money, surely Uncle Sam will spend his largess.   Maybe it will mitigate the effects of sequestration.  But Buffet's bravado reveals that his honesty taxes credibility and serves as a cheap trick in public policy discussions.

Lotto Luck Avoiding the Fiscal Cliff

As American teeters at the edge of the fiscal cliff, and most of the Lamestream Media gave saturation coverage to Powerball mania, it may be instructive to use the lotto fever paradigm to explain the futility of “soaking the rich” via President Obama’s unceasing class warfare campaigning as governing strategy.

As the Heritage Foundation’s graphic illustrates, even confiscating all of the lucky Lotto winners gross (granted government already takes around 50%), this would only fund the Federal Government for 86 MINUTES.  As Representative Tom Price (R-GA 6th) pointed out that President Obama’s plan to increase rates on the wealthiest 2% of Americans would only fund the government for EIGHT DAYS.  John Stossel points out that seizing the income of Americans earning $1 million or more would only garner $616 Billion, which is only 1/3rd of this year’s deficit.

It is worth noting that Mr. Obama’s opening bid to avoid the fiscal cliff was raising taxes by $1.6 Trillion over 10 years with ambiguous ersatz spending cuts made by future legislators.

Unless the IRS dons brown shirts, they probably will not seize all of the assets of the richy rich.  And remember that the Obama Administration considers the rich to be singles making $200,000 or couples making $250,000 a year.  Those upper incomes might be living large in “flyover” country, but in the true politically blue coastal cities like NY, DC, LA or SF, that may be barely getting by as middle class if you are married with children.



Much as it may be satisfying to socialist sympathsizing class warriors who want to excoriate the unconnected high income individuals, it is worth doing a cost benefit analysis.  Great Britain scrapped their 50% tax rates on high income earners when it discovered that it was garnering 2/3rds less than expected with the confiscatory rates.   Newly elected French President Francois  Hollande thinks that he can raise the rates on top Gallic grossers to 75% for just two years to better balance the books.  Alas, French tax evaders can take a 90 minute trip on the Chunnel to avoid those outrageous tax rates.  Soon Californian will see if there is capital flight after voters passed Proposition 30, which raised both taxes on the wealthy and the state sales tax in the midst of a shaky economy.  Will the mobile upper economic crust from the Golden State flee to lower taxing states–Who is John Galt?

While conservatives were disappointed that President Obama achieved re-election, the time for being campaigner-in-chief is over–now is the time to govern.  If President Obama is a leader then he should work with his Congressional counterparts to craft a legislative vehicle to avoid the fiscal cliff.  But if the Obama White House persists in playing puerile politics on Sequestration, then it may be time for Thelma and Louise, albeit without the sensible shoes.




If the American public thinks that by soaking the wealthiest one percent, it will balance the budget, then lotto luck.  If they are able to engage in critical thinking, it would behoove them to determine what is someone’s “fair share”.  Moreover, since the Obama Administration has defined millionaires downward to just $200,000, they should discern how low the label of the wealthy will go when seizing true millionaire’s incomes only funds the government for around just 100 days.  As Ayn Rand observed in Atlas Shrugged: “If you don't know, the thing to do is not to get scared, but to learn.”

h/t: Heritage.org